They owned a plot of land at Işıklar (Izmir) which the State expropriated in 1991. Challenging the amount of the compensation paid to them, the applicants took their case to the Turkish courts.

The Court thus considers that the applicants were already in a vulnerable position at the time of their transfers and that the ill-treatment to which they were subjected at that time exacerbated their

property and ordered them to pay compensation to the defendants for their share of the property.

The Court had only their application forms and powers of attorney; some of these were incomplete and there was generally no indication of when and where the powers of attorney had been signed.

These categorisations were repeated by the Board of Visitors when the applicant complained before them.

The soldiers had a list in their hands and they read out the names of certain villagers, including the applicant’s.

Previously, there had been water taps, but the inmates could not switch them on or off, this being done by a guard for all the prisoners.

This obviously necessitated their prior arrival in Brest harbour; the applicants were then placed in custody at 10.50 a.m.

They were released from pre-trial detention following the first hearing of the criminal case against them on 3 January 2020.

Since then they have had no access to their belongings. They submitted a copy of a letter sent to the mayor of Anapa in March 2013 in which they requested access to their property.

They stated that the plot, once the property of their antecedents, had been collectivised in the years after 1945, but had been returned to them within the context of the process of the restitution of

In addition, they contended that the sentence imposed on them of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure amounted to a breach of their right to liberty under Article 5, and that the fact that a government

This was the reason why, at some point, they claimed that they did not wish to pursue their complaints against the police officers. 44.

The Aliens Office summoned the applicants, who had left their accommodation centre, in order to serve the decision on them.

would then have been observed by the doctor who examined them at the end of their detention in custody on 22 September 1999.

They asked the Oktyabrskiy VOVD to inform them about the officers’ whereabouts. 116.

Furthermore, the Board observed that there had been several witnesses testifying against P. and L. during their trials for which reason it was unlikely that they would seek revenge on the applicant.

Struggling with unmet infantile needs of their own, they did not recognise the needs of their children. That was the major reason for the children’s disorders.

They took Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov into the yard, kicked them and threw them into the APC. The brothers were not allowed to put on any warm clothing.